Part One: Perspectives

Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 1

The aim of this part is to discuss methodological issues surrounding the analysis of organizations in general and Olympic organizations in particular, review developments in the organization theory literature with a focus on structural formations and types and finally discuss approaches to event management in the context of mega project planning.

Defining the Scope of the Analysis

The approach adopted here is to conceptualize the organizational analyses presented in this book as a series of conversations (Clegg & Hardy, 1996) that relate to the (Olympic) organizations as empirical objects and organizing as a social process. In line with Clegg (1990) we start with the premise that organizations are empirical objects. By this we mean that we see something when we see an organization, but each of us may see something different.

As researchers, we participate in enactment and interpretation processes. We choose what empirical sense we wish to make of organizations by deciding how we wish to represent them in our work. How aspects of Olympic organizations are represented, the means of represen- tation, the features deemed salient, those features glossed and those features ignored, are not attributes of the organization.They are Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 2

Olympic Event Organization

an effect of the reciprocal interaction of multiple conversations: those that are professionally organized, through journals, research agendas, cit- ations, and networks; those that take place in the empirical world of these organizations. The dynamics of reciprocity in this mutual interaction can vary: some conversations of practice inform those of the profession; some professionals talk dominated practice; some practical and professional conversations sustain each other; others talk past, miss, and ignore each other (p. 4).

With this conceptualization of analyses of (Olympic) organizations one can strive for reflexivity, by which we allude to ways of seeing which act back on and reflect existing ways of seeing. None is a more ‘correct’ analysis than any other: there are different possibilities. Like any good conversa- tion, the dialectic is reflexive and oriented not to ultimate agreement, but to the possibilities of understanding of and action within the contested terrains (p. 5).

Plenty of homogenized textbooks exist which offer certainties enough for those who require them and converting the anxieties of their readers into easy recipes and conventions. For students reading this book who endeavour to understand the Olympic events’ organization and grasp the complexity of the interactions between the various agents and agencies involved the book provides a starting point. For those aiming to engage theory to understand practise there are conceptual frameworks that aid theorizing. For managers in Olympic organizations there is the opportunity to see the broader organizational picture, the interdependencies of the Olympic business setup and the challenges presented by the contexts within which this array of organizations is operating. For Smith and Peterson (1988: pp. 47–48) definition of events of any kind have certain amount of elasticity in both space and time. Tentative boundaries defining an event could be placed around an exchange between individuals and organizations. The context, which would be an implicit but integral part of this event, would include things like the previous relationships between them, other occurrences in their respective work and personal lives, and the physical characteristics of the setting. Alternatively, an event could be defined as the entire history of the relationship between these two parties. If we choose the second perspective, the organization’s history as well as occurrences within the industry or the nation must be considered as the implicit context of the event. Thus, an ‘event’ comprised of various ‘occa- sions’ is constructed out of the information available to an observer, whether that observer is an actor or an ‘objective’ outsider. However, the imposition of boundaries around an event is not arbitrary, and it derives from what is actually done by the parties involved.The involved parties are seen as actually constructing ‘Gestalts’ or unified sets of perceptions, which may parallel the events constructed by observers. Similarly, Olympic events can be defined as

2 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 3

Perspectives

the history of relationships between the Olympic Movement and the host city country. Positivist and constructivist research paradigms are important in the sense that they can provide particular sets of lenses for seeing the social world. The theoretical approach of the organizational analyses reported in this book is founded on the realization that the ability to analyse phenomena of various kinds in organizations depends on the adequacy of the theoretical schemes employed. Such theoretical schemes not only guided the search for significant relationships that exist in the organizational settings of Olympic organizations but also assisted in establishing the difference in the researcher’s eyes, between simply knowing of a phenomenon and understanding its meaning. As a consequence, the research efforts were aided by the substantive bodies of theories that are discussed in this part. Bedeian (1980) claims that theory serves both as a tool and as a goal.The tool function being evident in the proposition that theories guide research by generating new predictions not otherwise likely to occur.As a goal, theory is often an end in itself, providing an economical and efficient means of abstracting, codifying, summarizing, integrating, and storing information. Before reviewing the emerging theoretical perspectives available to organizational analysts an attempt can be made to investigate how such perspectives can be mediated for purposes of inclusion and application. Morgan (1997) argues that the research possibilities raised by different theoretical perspectives need to be harnessed in order to yield the rich and varied explanations offered by multiple paradigm analysis. Like Morgan, Willmott (1990) is also concerned with paradigm plurality. Both examine Burrell’s (1996) scheme of competing paradigms, according to which social science can be conceptualized in terms of four sets of assumptions related to ontology, epistemology, human nature, and methodology (Figure 1.1). Willmott (1990) explores the possibilities for reconciling what Burrell (1996) regard as the irreconcilable features of these paradigms. He argues that the assumption of paradigmatic closure should be challenged by exam- ining the attempts of Giddens (1979; 1982) to integrate subjective and objective paradigms. The organizational analyses presented in this book have been concerned to move away from approaches based upon the dualism between action and structure, whereby a contrast is drawn between a structural perspective which specifies abstract dimensions and abstract constraints, to an interactionist perspective which attends to symbolic mediation and negotiated processes. Willmott (1990) argues that these procedures and perspectives which, used to be regarded as incompatible, must be incorporated in a more unified methodological framework. It is important to note that the aim of the research undertaken within the organization theories perspectives was to provide a better understanding of the organizational characteristics and dynamics found in Olympic organizations. This was to be achieved through the development of analytically

3 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 4

Olympic Event Organization

A Ontology N Epistemology T I N P P O R O O M Looking for S S I E I Rationality or I what appears A N T empiricism? T to be or L A I I I L actual things? V V I S I I S M S S M M M Methodology Human Nature V D I N O E D O L T E M U People’s actions E O Exploring O N stemming from R G emergent ideas or T T free will or M R the application H A I A of laws? E R predetermined? N P T I I H I S S I C M M C

Figure 1.1 Variety of assumptions about the nature of social sciences (Source: Adapted from Burrell (1996))

structured narratives which, as Hassard and Pym (1990) argue, link agents’ actions, structure, and context as they interweave within structural inertia, random events, contextual discontinuities, and significant changes in the environment.

Theoreticians have attempted to ‘fix’ the organizational world and by reducing its dynamics to a static classificatory system, imprison it. In this they have forced organizational analysis onto a procrustean bed on which it groans and squirms because it is not the right size to fit the cramping framework into which it is being pressed.Yet the forcing goes on. Each of the terms to be addressed below forces the subject into an understand- able and simplifying framework.This after all is what science does. But we must realize that what every concept does is to exclude as well as include, ignore as well as concentrate upon, to consign to obscurity as well as bring into the limelight. Concepts stretch the point and nowhere more than in the concept of paradigm (Burrell, 1996: p. 646).

Morgan (1997) argues that by using different metaphors to understand the complex and paradoxical character of organizational life, we are able to manage and design ways that we may not have thought possible. His use of different metaphors can also aid identification of issues and areas of friction

4 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 5

Perspectives

in organizations. The political metaphor for example, allows researchers to focus on the different sets of interests, conflicts, and power plays that shape organizational activities. Using it one can explore organizations as systems of government drawing on various political principles to legitimize different kinds of rule, as well as the detailed factors shaping the politics of organizational life.As regards the organizations as instruments of domination metaphor, the focus is on the potentially exploitative aspects of organization.The ways in which organizations often use their employees, their host communities, and the world economy to achieve their own ends, and how the essence of organization rests in a process of domination where certain people impose their will on others.An extension of the political metaphor, the image of domination helps understand the aspects of modern organization that have rad- icalized labour–management relations in may parts of the world. This metaphor is particularly useful for understanding organizations from the perspective of exploited groups, and for understanding how actions that are rational from one point can prove exploitative from another. Images of organizations can generate ideas and concepts that we can use for diagnosis and evaluation to understand organizations in specific settings. This aspect of organization has been made a special focus of study by rad- ical organization theorists inspired by the insights of Karl Marx and sociolo- gists Max Weber and Robert Michels. The negative impact that organizations often have on their employees or their environment, or which multinationals have on patterns of inequality and world economic development, are not necessarily intended impacts. They are usually consequences of rational actions through which a group of individuals seek to advance a particular set of aims, such as increased prof- itability or corporate growth.‘The overwhelming strength of the domination metaphor is that it draws our attention to this double-edged nature of rational action illustrating how talking about rationality one is always speak- ing from a partial point of view.Actions that are rational for increasing prof- itability may have a damaging effect on employees’ health.Actions designed to spread an organization’s portfolio of risks, for example by divesting interests in a particular industry, may spell economic and urban decay for whole communities of people who have built their lives around that industry.What is rational from one organizational standpoint may be catastrophic from another. Viewing organization as a mode of domination that advances certain interest at the expense of others forces this important aspect of organizational reality into the centre of attention. It leads to an appreciation of Max Weber’s insight that the pursuit of rationality can itself be a mode of domination, and to remember that in talking about rationality one should always be asking the question “rational for whom?” ’ (pp. 315–316).The real thrust of the domination metaphor should be to critique the values that guide organization and the focus of analysis should be to distinguish between exploitative and non-exploitative forms, rather than to engage in critique in a broader sense.

5 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 6

Olympic Event Organization

It is argued (Bryman, 1988; 1989) that doing research in organizations poses particular challenges to researchers.There is a wealth of academic gossip about the false starts that are part of the everyday world of the social researcher. Researchers make mistakes and change their minds.The lack of guidance to some of the realities of social research that textbooks offer can be held par- tially responsible for these tendencies. In addition, one needs to consider the influence of funding bodies and gatekeepers. There is a tendency to present research as though its origin and course are largely uninfluenced by external institutions. But such research may be funded and commissioned by external bodies and where research is conducted within organizations, gatekeepers have to allow the researcher access. Those who fund and those who provide access may seek to influence research very directly. Luck and serendipity in research also play an important role; being at the right place at the right time for picking up a number of important leads. The role of resources often surfaces in relation to very specific issues, such as the impact on sample size or the relative savings through the use of certain instruments in comparison to others. But they can also influence the climate in which research is done. The presence and absence of resources may constitute a key determinant of what is and is not studied not to men- tion how research is done. As regards the human resources involved in research it is important to note that there is often great fragility in research teams.They can easily deteriorate into hotbeds of discontent over the distribution of work, the decision-making process, the authority structure, and the appointment of credit. Researchers are attuned to a number of ethical issues like the ethics of covert observation and deception in experiments and the need for informed consent. Research in organizations can also be seen as something of a political minefield as is the case when the researcher is placed between opposite groups/parts of the industry under investigation. There are certain recurring themes in organizational research: gaining entry to organizations and then getting on with people who work in them. While the field of organization studies has been heavily influenced by quan- titative research, there is a growing recognition of the role of qualitative methods. Here we observe the associated difficulty of knowing how far generalizations from single cases can be stretched. What we know or think we know about organizations is based on samples providing little external validity. Researchers sample organizations or sub- units of organizations in opportunistic ways. When they do achieve a modi- cum of generalizability, the populations from which samples are selected often are themselves defined arbitrarily. . . They rarely work with samples that are representative of even the restricted types of organizations they choose to study.This has often led them to develop bodies of theory that do not apply generally. Studies into Olympic organizations,including the present one are not immune to the above challenges. Games impact studies are mostly carried out ex ante rather than ex post, are funded by government agencies and produced by

6 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 7

Perspectives

global consultants (KPMG for the Sydney and London Games). Other pressures are felt by researchers considering mismanagement or corruption in global sports organizations like Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Such pressures may stem from the epistemic community as well as public culture when it becomes antipatriotic to report on negative aspects of the organization of the Olympic Games. Having been contractually bound to ensure the protection of the image of Olympism, Organising Committees for the Olympic Games (OCOGs) are particularly eager to avoid scandal or defamation at home as well as abroad and this has implications on the level of support they offer to researchers. Furthermore, there is the problem of access to respondents from such organizations. Considering the fact that OCOGs are temporary organizations, it is possible to see that managers are quite busy before the games and immediately after the Olympic Games are over people leave the organization. Access to them is therefore often problematic and in addition to this the IOC has an embargo on recent corporate material. Even when access to OCOG interviewees prior to the Olympic Games is secured the issue of maintaining a positive image often surfaces as there are overwhelming pressures on staff not to compromise the company’s public image or risk raising issues prior to the IOC co-ordination commission visit. Numerous studies have highlighted the complexity of doing research in another country. Issues and challenges may be interpreted differently there. Some issues are unique to that setting while some others become redundant. Hofstede (1980; 1984) studies on value differences highlight how these have implications on behaviour at work. Such values including power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, and masculinity versus femininity. The literature contains ample reminders of the challenges of doing research in foreign country, on culture’s consequences, on language and meaning (what Wittgenstein meant when he argued that: ‘Meaning is use. If you do not use a language on a regular basis then you cannot understand how it is used by the natives’ (Burrell, 1996)). Furthermore the challenge of generalizability is acentuated by the fact that as the Olympic Games are always held in a new country researchers need to be able to travel to the host city, maybe understand the language spoken there, and be able to add to their generic framework the particularities of the host city organizational environment. The Olympic Movement operates via a number of interconnected parts/units and to understand the movement, researchers and managers need to understand the component parts, the National Olympic Committees (NOCs), the International Federations (IFs), and the OCOGs.These straddle the spectrum of organizational activity. Some being limited companies, other charities, asso- ciations, or public companies. Having control over the Olympic trademark, and deriving its funds from the sale of exclusive rights, the IOC is eager to pro- tect its monopoly business power. Current funding distribution arrangements create dependencies and conformity whilst ensuring the non-disturbance of

7 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 8

Olympic Event Organization

the status quo. Research that exposes the profit-making beneficiaries has the potential to be received as damaging to the image of Olympism, of fair play and the joy found in effort. If such bodies are funding the research they may pressure exercised to clear material with them before it is made public and this may be felt as a form of censorship. Similar pressures can sometimes be felt on the broader epistemic community by political imperatives for growth of national identity and pride. Under such conditions it may be seen as antipatriotic to critique Olympics-related efforts or processes. There are also issues with respecting any anonymity requests by respondents and the help of the gatekeepers that allow access to the organizations under investigation and reporting research findings without exposing them to others in the community.

8 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 9

1 Structures in context

Organization theory is the sociological and multi- disciplinary analysis of organizational structure and the dynamics of social relationships in organizations. It is concerned with how organizations are created and maintained and how they function internally. The unit of analysis, therefore, is the whole organization (Banner & Gagne, 1995). The focus of this specialist area is upon all types of organization (including non-profit, voluntary organizations) in an attempt to arrive at a general theory of organizations, develop typologies of organizations, and explain similarities and differences in organizational structure. In practice, the boundaries between the multi-disciplinary study of organization theory and the sociology of organizations are difficult to discern, since writers in these fields often publish in the same journals, and many organizational issues (such as managerial strategy, decision making, and innovation) draw upon a multi-disciplinary framework. Over the past half century, researchers from a wide variety of disciplines have developed various strategies for studying organizations. Histor- ically an interdisciplinary field, organization theory has been particularly influenced by its constituent disciplines especially sociology,psychology,anthro- pology, and economics. As a consequence, diversity has long been a dominant feature of research Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 10

Olympic Event Organization

on organizations. Such a diversity has contributed to the dynamic and plurali- stic growth of organizational research, and assisted in avoiding academic isolation and conceptual stagnation. However, it has also produced differences in concepts, terminologies, and methods which have led to disagreements. The growth of an interest in organization paralleled the growing economic and industrial development of the United States of America and Western Europe. The forces of expanding technology, paired with new advances in transportation and communication, dramatically increased the scope and complexity of organizational undertakings. These changes necessitated the formulation and investigation of new concepts for the design and function of organizations (Bedeian, 1980). Since the 1970s much sociological writing on organizations has adopted a more critical stance towards managerially defined applied issues and ‘problems’ in organizations, such as worker motivation and efficiency, in an attempt to re-establish the study of organizations in historical context and in relation to the wider society, to include, for example, studies of the way in which class and gender inequalities are reproduced in organizational contexts. Reed (1996: p. 46) structures sub-themes in organization theory under the themes: agency–structure, constructivism–positivism, and local–global.Those who emphasize agency, focus on an understanding of social order that stresses the social practices through which human beings create and reproduce institutions. Those located on the structures’ side highlight the importance of external relations and patterns that determine and constrain social interaction within specific institutional forms. Agency–structure debates are concerned with how creativity and con- straint are related through social activity; with whether one is observing the social practices of human beings or patterns and institutional forms of social interaction. Constructivism–positivism are radically opposed epistemologies that legitimate very different procedures and protocols for assessing the knowledge claims which organization researchers make. Positivistic epistemology severely restricts the range of knowledge claims allowable in organization studies to those who pass a rigorous trial by methods and the law-like generalizations that it sanctions. Constructivism takes a much more liberal, not to say relativistic stance. Rational-integrationalist and market narratives developed on the basis of a realist ontology and positivist epistemology. Power, knowledge, and justice traditions were more disposed towards a nominalist constructionist ontology and anti-positivist conventionalist epistemology. The local–global debate emerges from the narratives focused on questions relating to the level of analysis at which organizational research and analysis should be pitched. Power, knowledge, and justice focus local micro- processes and practices. Rational-integrationalist and market global macro- conception of organization. As regards individualism–collectivism, if individualism offers a vision of organization as the unintended creation of individual actors following the

10 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 11

Structures in context

dictates of their particular instrumental and political objectives, then, collectivism treats organizations as an objective entity that imposes itself on actors with such force that they have little or no choice but to obey its commands (Reed, 1996).

Classic School of Organization Theory

Weber’s ideal type of bureaucracy provided the point of departure for the post-war development of a sociology of organizations that concerned itself with rationality and order. His work has been a key resource for mainstream perspectives, especially on questions of rationality and efficiency. His ideas in this area have to be considered as part of a broader conception of ration- alization which was considered to be the key modernizing characteristic of the development of industrial societies. Gouldner’s (1955) distinction between ‘punishment-centred’ and ‘representative’ bureaucracy, and Burns and Stalker (1961) comparison of ‘mechanistic’ and ‘organic’ forms of organization have been particularly influential for later research. Gouldner (1955) demonstrated how bureaucratic rules can be resisted and suggested that bureaucratization can take different forms with varying levels of participation by its members. The contrast between mechanistic and organic organization was used by Burns and Stalker to suggest that different organizational structures are appropriate depending on the degree of stability or uncertainty in the environment. Mechanistic structures are bureaucratic, hierarchical, and rigid in contrast to organic structures which are flexible, decentralized, and more able to cope with innovation and rapidly changing environments. Morgan (1997) suggests that comparisons between organizations were further elaborated in the attempt to develop general organization typologies based on types of goals which lead to different outputs, the criterion of who benefits from the organization’s existence, and activities and on structures of compliance in which those who control organizations utilize types of power to secure the involve- ment of other members.

The Human Relations School

The subsequent development of organization theory reflects both the various theoretical approaches in sociology as a whole and the influence of managerial perspectives, particularly scientific management and the human relations school with a focus on integration and consensus. The ideas of Taylor, the founder of scientific management at the turn of the century, complement those of Weber. Despite his emphasis on rationality in organizations, Weber did not explicitly deal with the role of management. In developing schemas for the potentially scientific character of management Taylor was building on the themes of rationality and formal control, subsequently

11 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 12

Olympic Event Organization

advocated by Weber. Emphasis was put on a series of techniques to measure and control work and define clearly the relative tasks of management and worker. It fits clearly in a positivistic framework of belief that there are objective means of measurement which can help discover laws governing work activity.Taylor’s ideas were a crucial ingredient in legitimizing the conception of management as a rational, scientific activity, and this has been an enduring feature of mainstream analysis ever since (Clegg & Dunkerley, 1980; Morgan, 1997). Following Taylor, the sociological analysis of Emile Durkheim had a major impact on approaches to organizational analysis. His contribution centres on the significance of the division of labour in sustaining the social solidarity necessary for the survival of the ‘organism’ of society, or the enterprise. He recognized that the bureaucratic arrangements and formal structures developing in industrial societies contained sources of social disorganization, con- flict, and individualism. It was, therefore, management’s role to organize the technical and formal needs of the organization and cater for the social needs of those who worked in it (Durkheim, 1957; 1984).This represents the begin- ning of the human relations tradition.A prominent figure within this tradition was Elton Mayo who was principally responsible for publishing the Hawthorne experiments. Echoing Durkheim, he felt that scientific and technical developments had outstripped the social skills and social arrangements of man, one consequence of which was widespread anomie (Mayo, 1949). His approach underlined the importance of the social engineering role given to management in maintaining equilibrium and integrating the parts of the organization. This strand of management is clearly related to the humanistic school of psychology of Maslow and reappears in contemporary management writing such as Peters and Waterman (1982). The main weakness of human relations theory is that it fails to acknowledge the relations of power implied by social engineering. In so doing, it provides a management-centred view of organizational reality, in which theory is used to legitimate the manipulation of the work force to achieve managerial ends.

Systems Theory

The classical and human relations theories tended to have a rather static view of the organization in which structures and practices could be internally regu- lated, with little reference to the outside world. Organizations were conceived of as closed systems balancing the various human and technical components. To counter this, the notion of organizations as systems was introduced drawing on the basic organic analogy used by Durkheim and others, in which all social systems were described as adapting to the environment in order to survive (Katz, 1966). This became a theme of functionalist social theory which regards social systems as self-regulating bodies, tending towards a state of equilibrium and order. Each part of any system plays a positive functional role in

12 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 13

Structures in context

this process.Thus the organization is a system of interrelated parts or sub-units each functioning to mobilize resources towards meeting wider goals. These parts are at the same time differentiated and interdependent, aiding processes of integration and co-ordination (Parsons, 1956). A crucial development within systems theory was the acceptance of the importance of interaction with the environment which was based on the premise that the survival of an organization depends on its capacity to adapt to markets and technologies. Open systems theory became the mainstream approach explaining how organizations coped with uncertainty through exchange and transaction with the external environment (Parsons, 1956). Functionalism has exerted a powerful influence on organization theory either explicitly, as in the concept of the organization as a system, or implicitly via assumptions about organizational ‘survival’ and ‘adaptation’ to the environment. Following increases in the levels of environmental complexity experienced by organizations, open systems theory has focused on interdependencies with the environment (although the environment is seen as existing separate from and outside of the organization’s system). Managing and controlling an environment has become an important managerial goal, especially because the environments in which organizations operate are characterized by increasing turbulence, or rapid change along with increased uncertainty. Open systems theory provides a model for the understanding of organizations in which an ‘energetic’ input–output system exists. Social organizations are open systems in that the input of energies and the conversion of output into further energetic input consists of transactions between the organization and the environment (Scott, 1992). Open systems theory defines an organization in terms of interrelated subsystems, and attempts to establish congruencies between different systems (e.g. strategic, environmental, technological, managerial, and structural subsystems), and to identify and elim- inate potential dysfunctions (Morgan, 1997). Collectively,these ideas have pointed the way to theories of organization and management that allow a move away from bureaucratic thinking, and the fos- tering of organizing in a way that meets the requirements of the environment. These insights have been used under contingency theory which is discussed below. The difference between systems and open systems approaches rests in the assumptions of adapting to the environment (systems theory) or modifying it (open systems theory). Both approaches, however, suffer from the weaknesses of functionalist thinking more generally, with the ‘function’ of organizational changes being explained by the needs of the organization (to adapt, etc.) rather than by reference to the interests and intentions of organizational actors.

Population Ecology Model

The goal of much organizational research is to discover how organizations adapt to change, but one school of thought has as its hypothesis that

13 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 14

Olympic Event Organization

organizations cannot adapt very much.This is the population ecology model (Freeman, 1989).All ecological perspectives attribute patterns from nature to the action of selection-market-led processes, whereas the bulk of the literature on organization–environment relations focuses on adaptation processes. The crux of the natural selection view of population ecology is that the environment enables particular types of organizations to survive and others to fail based on the fit between structural and environmental characteristics. Proponents of the model argue that because constraints or inertia make it difficult for organizations to adapt their structures to a given set of environmental conditions, an organization must find a niche where its particular structural strengths are useful. Population ecology theory contradicts the basic premise of the industrial paradigm which refers to the ability to manipulate external circumstances or internal structures to produce results pleasing to the individual or the organization. An argument that being at the right place at the right time is the major factor in determining organizational survival will not be accepted by those who wish to argue that managerial decisions, strategic and tactical, control an organization’s destiny. Furthermore, population ecology runs counter to the premises of structuration allowing no room for human agency. Empirical evidence suggests that not only does equifinality occur (i.e. similar outcomes for organizations of very different structures and employing varied strategies) but also different outcomes occur for organizations employing similar structures and strategies operating in the same environment (Whittington, 1989).The ‘effects’ of the environment therefore, are not uniform across organizations with similar structural and strategic characteristics. Some account of agency is therefore required for explanations to be adequate.

Contingency Theory

The main ideas underlying contingency theory include the notions that organizations are open systems that need careful management to satisfy and balance internal needs and to adapt to environmental circumstances. Furthermore it is recognized that no single formula of structure or strategy will be applicable in all circumstances. Appropriate organizational forms and strategies will depend on the kind of task or environment with which one is dealing. Management thus is to be concerned with achieving good fits. Different approaches to management may be necessary to perform different tasks within the same organization, and quite different types or species of organization are needed in different types of environment. One of the most influential studies establishing the credentials of this approach was that conducted by Burns and Stalker (1961) who identified the distinction between mechanistic and organic approaches to organization and management, and thought that more flexible forms are required to deal with changing environments. Lawrence and Lorsch (1986) refined the contingency approach by showing

14 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 15

Structures in context

that styles of organization may need to vary between organizational sub- units because of the detailed characteristics of their sub-environments. Contingency theory has been widely employed as an empirical, survey- based approach to establish correlations between ‘contextual variables’ (size, technology, and environment), structural aspects of the organization (degree of formalization, standardization, and centralization), and their effect upon performance.The most influential of these empirical studies were what became known as the ‘Aston studies’ (Pugh & Hickson, 1976). The contingency approach has been embraced by management theorists because of its potential in relating organizational design to performance, and the implica- tion that earlier prescriptions from scientific management for organizational structure and strategy ‘blue-prints’ were inappropriate. Interestingly, contingency approaches have been criticized by some management theorists with a renewed emphasis on universal principles such as the need for a ‘power organizational culture’ (Peters & Waterman, 1982). Within the organization theory field, contingency theory has been criticized for its deterministic assumptions and untheorized empiricism (Clegg, 1990). The neglect of power relations by contingency theorists has been stressed by Child (1984), who proposes a strategic contingency approach to organizations which concentrates upon the role of managerial choice in actively shaping organizational structures in response to contingencies. Contingent factors, such as the environment, are, in turn, not treated as ‘independent variables’ but partly chosen or controlled by particularly powerful organizations. In its prediction of organizational performance or effectiveness, resulting from the congruence between elements of the organization’s context – size, technology, or environment – contingency theory specifies an interaction. Pfeffer (1997) suggests that this interaction has seldom been tested. What is needed, he argues, is much more precisely stated and potentially falsifiable hypotheses.These might include more attention to which of the various elements of organizational context was important for understanding which elements of structure, and under what conditions.

Configuration Theory

The configuration approach makes a clear break from the contingency mainstream, which has been preoccupied with abstracting a limited set of structural concepts like centralization and formalization, and measuring their relationships with a limited set of abstracted situational concepts, such as size and technological uncertainty. By synthesizing broad patterns from contingency theory’s fragmented concepts, and grounding them in rich, multivariate descriptions, the configurational approach may help consolidate the past gains of contingency theory (Meyer, Tsui, & Hinings, 1993). Configura- tional enquiry assumes a holistic stance, asserting that the parts of a social entity take their meaning from the whole and cannot be understood in isolation.

15 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 16

Olympic Event Organization

Social systems are seen as tightly coupled amalgams entangled in multi- directional causal loops. Non-linearity is acknowledged, so variables found to be causally related in one configuration may be unrelated or even inversely related in another. In acknowledging that there is more than one way to succeed in each type of setting, the configuration approach explicitly accommodates the important concept of equifinality. Organizational analysis has a research tradition rife with attempts at clas- sifying organizations, as documented by Carper and Snizek (1980). Classifica- tion has been at the basis of organizational theorizing, from Weber’s notions of charisma, traditionalism, and bureaucracy, through Burn’s and Stalker’s distinction between mechanistic and organic structures, to Mintzberg (1979) distinctions between simple structure, machine bureaucracy, professional bureaucracy, divisionalized form, adhocracy, and missionary organization. It has been used to support a central tenet of organization theory, namely that there are different kinds of organization and that many (or all) aspects of organizational functioning are related to organization type. Organizational scholars taking configurational approaches fall into the group of typologists or taxonomists. Conceptually derived sets of configurations are referred to as typologies while empirically derived ones as taxonomies. Typologists generally follow the Weberian logic of ideal types, accentuating key characteristics so as to draw a priori distinctions between organizations. The logic of taxonomy, on the other hand, lies in empirical classification based on multivariate analysis of multiple dimensions that may cover structures, processes, strategies, and contexts (Meyer et al., 1993). So the rationale for the production of theoretically based, empirical taxonomies is the theorized impact of taxonomic position on a wide range of other organizational phenomena.The historical emphasis on classification derives from the idea of generalizable, holistic, structural differences between classes of organization which are central to all aspects of organizational life.

Institutional Theory

Institutional theory first appeared in the mid-1970s and has generated much interest and attention. It has raised provocative questions about the world of organizations, such as why organizations of the same type, such as schools and hospitals, located in widely scattered locales, so closely resemble one another (Scott, 1992). Institutions have been defined as consisting of cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and activities that give stability and meaning to social behaviour (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). It is argued that various carriers – cultures, structures, and routines – transport institutions and they operate at multiple levels of jurisdiction (Scott, 1992). The term ‘organizational field’ is used to describe organizations that in aggregate constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and project consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations

16 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 17

Structures in context

that produce similar services or products (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Similarly, Scott (1992) defines fields as a set of diverse organizations attempting to carry on a common enterprise. In the initial stages of their life cycle, organizational fields display diversity in approach and form. Once a field becomes well established, however, there is an inexorable push towards homogenization (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). The concept used in the literature to capture the process of homogenization is ‘isomorphism’ and is defined as the constraining process that forces one unit in a population to be like other units that face the same set of environmental conditions (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Institutions, according to Scott (1992) have a regulative, normative and cognitive dimension. Each of the pillars provides a basis for legitimacy,albeit a different one. In the resource dependence or social exchange approach to organization, legitimacy is sometimes treated as simply a different kind of resource. However, from an institutional perspective, legitimacy is not a commodity to be possessed or exchanged but a condition reflecting cultural alignment, normative support, or consonance with relevant rules or laws. In explaining the conditioning of organizations by institutions in their field, new institutionalists provide a framework that allows the investigation of the interactions among organizations and forces at play that lead to isomorphic change. Meyer and Rowan (1977) argue that isomorphism with environmental institutions has some crucial consequences for organizations: (i) they incorporate elements which are legitimated externally, rather than in terms of efficiency; (ii) they employ external or ceremonial assessment criteria to define the value of structured elements, and (iii) dependence on externally fixed institutions reduces turbulence and maintains stability. Incorporating externally legitimated formal structures increases the commitment of internal participants and external constituents, and the use of external assessment criteria can enable an organization to remain successful by social definition. However, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) contend that isomorphism occurs as the result of processes that make organizations more similar without necessarily making them more efficient. Bureaucratization and other forms of homogenization emerge, they argue, out of the structuration of organizational fields. They identify three mechanisms through which institutional isomorphic change occurs, each with its own antecedents: (i) ‘coercive isomorphism’ that stems from political influence and the problem of legitimacy, (ii) ‘mimetic isomorphism’ resulting from standard response to uncertainty, and (iii) ‘normative isomorphism’ associated with professionalization. However, this list is an analytic one and as Powell and DiMaggio (1991) contend, the types are not always empirically distinct.

Organization Theory Development

Within organization theory modernist thinking is seen to find its clearest expression in the intellectual dominance and ideological power of systems analysis.The latter is aligned with the control needs of large-scale technological

17 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 18

Olympic Event Organization

systems. ‘Post-modernist’ writers have argued that the dominance of modernist thought in organizational analysis has been challenged and undermined by movements that have striven to expose the limitation of systems driven theories of formalization. By the late 1970s there was a perceived crisis in organization theory (Reed, 1993).The established rational systems approach was seen to have no answer to issues such as the production of organizational reality, the connection of organizations to the larger set of structural arrangements in society, and the continuously emergent character of organizational patterns. This movement in organizational analysis away from paradigm polarization and towards a renewed search for forms which are flexible enough to accommodate a plurality of divergent views, is reflected in a range of transitions in the field. First, there was an attempt to locate developments within organization theory in their wider socio-historical context. Second, a realization that epistemological uncertainty, theoretical plurality and diversity of methods do not lead to a disordered field of study. Third, there is an attempt to establish the dialectical interaction between intellectual development and changing control practices in organizational forms through which social order is managed in advanced industrial societies. Finally, there is a reaction to relativism and paradigm use. In its place, there is an inclination to discover the nature of the epistemologies in use in organization theory and the social networks through which debates are held between different theory or research groups (Clegg, 1990; Willmott, 1990; Hassard, 1993). The impact of the shifts in intellectual focus and direction outlined in the above section has been to provide a context in which a different kind of research agenda to that prevailing in the late 1970s and early 1980s has taken shape in the late 1980s and 1990s. While the development of this agenda has been influenced by ‘post-modern’ thinking (most obviously in regard to the growing interest in organizational cultures), both its content and analytical focus seem to stress the continuity with older traditions of thought and research (Reed, 1993).This is to the extent that paradigm incommensurabil- ity and closure invoked by post-modernist writers has given way to a much more relativistic assessment of the need for mediation between conflicting paradigms. Underpinning the themes of a ‘new’ organization theory, lies the debate as regards the extent to which modern organizations can be seen as the primary institutional carriers for the diffusion of technical and instrumental rationality in western industrialized societies (Clegg, 1990). However, the tendency exhibited by recent organizational studies has been seen as entailing a retreat from rationality as the defining feature of discourse and analysis. The proliferation of alternative perspectives that reject the ration- alistic bias of mainstream writing seem to have left the field in a state of dis- solution and the theory of rational analysis, has given way to a ‘cacophony’ of multiple and contested rationalities (Reed, 1993). The trajectory of changes in organization theorizing indicated above, high- lights the managerialist limitations of theories such as scientific management and human relations, the functionalist weaknesses of systems theory

18 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 19

Structures in context

approaches, and the similar structuralist limitations of population ecology.In essence, the two managerialist schools of thought are flawed ‘agency’ accounts providing ‘objective’ rules of thumb for maximizing efficiency by legitimat- ing managerial control. The latter theories, systems, and population ecology, focus on structure, failing to account for the actions of agents or interests groups within organizations. The Weberian tradition, as seen in Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy in the political and cultural hegemony in which it was developed and operational- ized, has been sustained in organization studies and is seen as presenting, a more fruitful basis for exploring the dynamics of organizational change and institutional transition. What this implies is not that organizations should be seen to be constituted of single, rational accounts of reality. Rather it implies that the domain assumptions on which this theory is based have been (and continue to be) the dominant ones in both organizational analysis and management prescription. Thus it is this theoretical tradition which provides a useful focus for evaluation. Mintzberg’s configuration theory provides a theoretical approach closely related to Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy, in that structural and contextual characteristics are explored which constitute an organization’s micro- and macro-environment. Clegg and Hardy (1996) review/gather organizational theory literature in terms of its chronological development along a number of themes. They identify particular perspectives that have been developed in the last three decades to capture aspects or organizational reality. Morgan (1997) also gathered this work in his book On the Images of Organisations, arguing that all these perspectives complement each other and offer important insights that are necessary for an analysis to have a well-rounded view. Each school of thought has particular epistemological and ontological assumptions and is predisposed towards a certain mode of analysis and each of these schools can be utilized to illuminate the Olympic Games event organization.

Types of Structures

A simple structure can be thought of as no structure at all. In a simple structure the organization is run by the personal control of the individual. There is little division of management responsibility and little clear definition if there is more than one person involved (Johnson & Scholes, 1999: p. 402). A functional structure is based on the primary activities that have to be carried out such as production, finance and accounting, marketing and personnel. This structure is typically found in smaller companies, or those with narrow rather than diverse product ranges. However, within a multidivisional structure the divisions themselves are likely to be split up into functional management areas. In organizations of any size there is likely to be a diversity of product service and market client groups which may lead to a diversity of positioning decisions for the different strategic business units (SBUs).

19 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 20

Olympic Event Organization

For example, an airline or a hotel wishing to differentiate between its business and family customers. A functional structure can be very problematic in coping with this diversity since the structure is built around business processes which cut across the various SBUs and there is often an attempt to impose an unhelpful uni- formity of approach between the SBUs.‘So the lead times in production, debt control in finance, advertising expenditure in marketing, bonus systems in personnel, are too rigid to reflect the diversity which the organization faces. The work of individuals is planned around a specialist business process and no one (other than the most senior managers) has any real ownership of the whole product or client group’ (p. 403). ‘Ways of minimizing these problems are first improving co-ordination between functions and second creation of substructures within business functions to bring ownership of product or client group. For example, within sales and marketing there might be roles such as product managers or key account sales staff’ (p. 404). A holding company is an investment company consisting of shareholdings in a variety of separate business operations over which the corporate centre exercises simple control. Although part of a parent company these business units operate independently and probably retain their original company names. ‘The advantages that a holding company can offer are based on the idea that the constituent businesses will operate their product market strategy to their best potential if left alone, particularly as business environments become more turbulent’ (p. 408). A matrix structure is a combination of structures which often takes the form of product and geographical divisions or functional and divisional structures operating in tandem. Matrix structures do not occur only in large, complex organizations; they are sometimes found in quite small organizations and are very common in professional service organizations in the public and private sector. In reality few organizations operate entirely like one of the pure structural types as the skill is in blending structure to the organization’s circumstances. A drive for flatter structures/de-layering improvements in speed and qual- ity of management information allows for spans of control wider than was hitherto regarded as desirable and work becomes less dependent on one place of work. Many organizations debating and implementing concepts of virtual organizations which are organizations held together by partnership, network- ing, and collaboration. Networks can be one-stop shop with a single point of contact and delivery or a one-start shop with one initial contact who then directs work further and finally the service network where there is no single point for clients in the network. A basic form of structure for a multinational is the retention of the home structure and the creation of overseas subsidiaries which are managed through direct contact between the top manager of the subsidiary and the chief executive of the parent company. ‘How co-ordination is achieved will vary with circumstances and over time. International division interests are often managed

20 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 21

Structures in context

through division along geographically based international subsidiaries. According to Johnson and Scholes (1999) many of the multinationals founded in colonial days operated this way. The control of the parent company is likely to be dependent on some form of planning and reporting system and perhaps the ultimate veto over national strategies’ (pp. 417–418). Another form of structure is around a global product or integrated structure. Here the multinational is split into product divisions which are then managed across the world whereby following the logic of cost efficiency there is an enhanced transfer of resources and competences. Transnational corporations sometimes combine the local responsiveness of the international subsidiary with the advantages available from co-ordination found in global product companies by creating an integrated network of interdependent resources and competences. Under such setups each national unit operates independently but is a source of ideas and capabilities for the whole corporation and national units may achieve global scale through specialization on behalf of the whole corporation. Then the challenge for the corporate centre is in managing a global network by first establishing the role of each subsidiary and then sustaining the culture and systems to make the network operate effectively.The success of such a transnational corporation is dependent on the ability simultaneously to achieve global competences, local responsiveness, and organization-wide innovation and learning. This then requires some degree of clarity as to the roles which the various global managers need to perform. Those in charge of global products or businesses have the overriding responsibility to further the company’s global competitiveness which will cross both national and functional boundaries. They must be the product/market strategist the architect of the business resources and competencies, the driver of product innovation, and the co-ordinator of transnational transactions. Managers of countries or territories must also act as a sensor of local needs. They must be able to build unique competences; that is, become a centre of excellence which allows them to be a contributor to the company as a whole. Managers of functions such as finance and Information Technology (IT) have a major responsibility for ensuring worldwide innovation and learning across the various parts of the organization. This requires the skill to recog- nize and spread best practise across the organization – a form of internal benchmarking. So they must be able to scan the organization for best practice, cross-pollinate this best practice and be the champion of innovations, for example, in re-engineering business processes. The critical issue is the role played by the corporate managers which is vital in the transnational corporation in integrating these roles and responsibilities. Not only are they the leaders, but they are also the talent spotters among business, country,and functional managers, facilitating the interplay between them, for example they must foster the processes of innovation and knowledge creation. They are responsible for the development of a strong management centre in the organization.

21 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 22

Olympic Event Organization

Johnson and Scholes (1999) also refer to the differences between countries in the way that global strategies have tended to develop. Companies originat- ing from Europe (e.g. Unilever) needed to internationalize their activities at an early stage owing to small size of home countries. This took the form of international subsidiary and their challenge is to reduce local autonomy and increase global integration. US companies, with large domestic market, on the contrary favour international divisions. In both contexts organizations now face two issues in globalization: local autonomy and barriers between separate strategic views of the domestic and international business.

Mintzberg’s Configurational Analysis

The structure of an organization can be defined simply as the sum total of the ways in which it divides its labour into distinct tasks and then achieves co-ordination among them (Mintzberg, 1979). Before structure is discussed, reference will be made to Mintzberg’s account of the basic parts of organizations, the processes of co-ordination of activities, the parameters used to design their structures, and the situational factors as these are defined by Mintzberg (Mintzberg, 1979; 1981; Mintzberg & Queen, 1992). What follows therefore is an adapted account of Mintzberg’s scheme that starts by defining the parts of the organization. This section considers the importance of structural design, the parts which constitute the organization, and the variety of structural types which Mintzberg identifies. He found that many organizations fall close to one of five natural types, each a combination of structure and situation. When managers and organizational designers try to mix and match the elements of different ones, they may end up with a misfit that, like an ill-cut piece of clothing, will not wear very well (Mintzberg, 1979; 1981).The key to organizational design is consistency and coherence. What in fact are these structural types? Are they abstract ideals, real-life structures, or building blocks for more complex structures? In some sense Mintzberg argues, that the answer is yes in all three cases. Management that grabs at every structural innovation that comes along may be doing its organization a great harm. It risks going off in all directions. In the fashionable world of organizational design, fit remains an important characteristic. An organization may achieve its own internal consistency and then have it disturbed by the intervention of external controls. Some organizations do indeed achieve and maintain an internal consistency. But then they find that it is designed for an environment the organization is no longer in. Structure is no more designed to fit the situation than the situation to fit the structure, but in industries it is often far easier to shift and retreat to a suitable niche than to undo a cohesive structure. To conclude, consistency, coherence, and fit – harmony – are critical factors in organization design, but they come at a price. An organization cannot be

22 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 23

Structures in context

all things to all people. It should do what it does well and suffer the consequences. Be an efficient machine bureaucracy where that is appropriate and do not pretend to be highly adaptive. Or create some new type of structure to suit the needs.The point is not really which type of structure the organization has; it is that its structure is internally consistent and suitable for the environment of the organization. Configuration theory supports a central assumption of organization theory, namely that there are different kinds of organizations and that many (or all) aspects of organizational functioning are related to organization type. As Mintzberg (1994: p. 400) argues, configuration implies system in a most integrated sense. There are no dependent and independent variables in a system; everything influences and is influenced by everything else. Mintzberg (1979; 1983) presented both a typology and a theory. As a typology, his work provides a rich descriptive tool that identifies six potentially effective configurations of structural, contextual, and process factors. As a theory, it presents a series of logical arguments that result in specific predictions about organizational effectiveness as a function of the degree of similarity between a real organization and one or more of the ideal types (Doty, Glick, & Huber, 1993). Mintzberg’s typology of configurations was subsequently used to consider various postures that planning, plans, and planners might take under different circumstances.The strategy process is viewed by Mintzberg and Queen (1992) as an interplay of the forces of power, sometimes highly politicized. Rather than assuming that organizations are consistent, coherent, and cooperative systems, tightly integrated to pursue certain traditional ends, Mintzberg exhibits different premises. He shares the views of Quinn (1977) that organizations’ goals and directions are determined primarily by the power needs of those who populate them. His analysis raises the question: for whom does the organization really exist? For what purposes? If the organization is truly a political entity, how does one manage effectively within it? To understand the structural configurations, their planning activities, and power contexts, one must first understand each of the elements that make them up. Accordingly, before the typology of structural configurations is discussed, reference is given to Mintzberg’s account of the basic parts of organizations, the processes of co-ordination of activities, the parameters used to design their structures, and the contingency or situational factors as these are defined by Mintzberg (Mintzberg, 1979; 1981; Mintzberg & Queen, 1992). What follows therefore is a fairly detailed account of Mintzberg’s scheme.

Parts of the organization These consist of:

(a) The operating core where the operators, those who perform the basic work of producing products or rendering services are found. (b) The strategic apex of managers who oversee the systems operation.

23 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 24

Olympic Event Organization

(c) The technostructure of analysts or technical staff. (d) The support staff. (e) The ideology or culture of the organization which encompasses the traditions and beliefs of an organization.

Co-ordinating mechanisms The structure of an organization can be defined as the total of the ways in which its labour is divided into distinct tasks and then its co-ordination achieved among those tasks. These are:

(a) Mutual adjustment whereby co-ordination is achieved by the process of informal communication. (b) Direct supervision as co-ordination is achieved through orders. (c) Standardization of work processes. (d) Standardization of outputs. (e) Standardization of skills. (f) Standardization of norms (common beliefs).

Parameters of design The essence of organizational design is the manipulation of a series of parameters that determine the division of labour and the achievement of co- ordination. These include:

(a) Job specialization, performed horizontally and vertically, of unskilled and professional jobs. Complex jobs specialized horizontally but not vertically are generally referred to as professional. Managerial jobs are typically the least specialized in the organization. (b) Behaviour formalization through the imposition of operating instruc- tions, job descriptions, rules and regulations.This is linked to standardization of processes with the aim of regulation and predictability. Behaviour formalization is most common in the operating core of the organization. At the strategic apex, which typically comes face to face with the most fluid boundary, the environment at large, the work is the least programmes and so we should expect to find highly organic conditions. (c) Training through use of formal instructional programmes to transfer skills and knowledge and indoctrination which refers to programmes and techniques by which norms of the members of an organization are stand- ardized. Such parameters are linked to formalization professionalization as well as to standardization of skills: – Unit grouping. – Knowledge or skills. – Work processes and function. (d) Unit grouping which refers to the choice of the bases by which positions are grouped together into units, and those units into higher order units (typically shown on the organization chart).

24 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 25

Structures in context

(e) Unit size as the number of positions contained in a single unit. (f) Planning and control systems which are used to standardize outputs and are important for performance evaluation and action planning. (g) Liaison devices which refer to series of mechanisms used to encourage mutual adjustment within and between units.These will include the estab- lishment of liaison positions, task force standing committees, and integrating managers. (h) Decentralization which refers to the diffusion of decision-making power and can be either vertical or horizontal.

Situational factors The following contingency or situational factors influence the choice of the design parameters and include:

(a) The age and size of the organization which affect particularly the extent to which its behaviour is formalized and its administrative structure elaborated. As they age and grow organizations appear to go through distinct structural transitions, for example, from simple organic to elaborated bureaucratic structure or from functional grouping to market- based grouping. (b) The technical system of the organization which influences especially the operating core and those staff units most clearly associated with it. When the technical system of the organization regulates the work of the operating core, as is done in mass production, it has the effect of bureaucratizing the organization by virtue of the standards it imposes on lower level workers. Alternatively, when the technical system suc- ceeds in automating the operating work, as is done in process production, it reduces the need for external rules and regulations enabling the structure to be organic.When the technical system is complex, as is often the case in process production, the organization has to create a significant professional support staff to deal with it and then decentralize selectively to that staff many of the decisions concerned with the technical system. (c) The environment of the organization which can vary in its degree of complexity, in how static or dynamic it is, in the diversity of its markets, and in the hostility it contains for the organization. The more complex the environment, the more difficulty central management has in com- prehending it and the greater the need for decentralization. The more dynamic the environment, the greater the difficulty in standardizing work, outputs, or skills and so the less bureaucratic the structure. (d) The power factors of the organization include external control, personal power needs, and fashion.The more an organization is controlled externally, the more centralized and bureaucratic it tends to become.This can be explained by the fact that the two most effective means to control an

25 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 26

Olympic Event Organization

organization from the outside are to hold its most powerful decision maker, the chief executive officer (CEO), responsible for his/her actions and to impose clearly defined standards on him/her (performance standards or rules and regulations). Moreover, because the externally controlled organization must be especially careful about its actions, often having to justify these to outsiders, it tends to formalize much of its behaviour and insist that its CEO authorizes key decisions. A second factor, individual power needs (especially by the CEO) tend to generate excessively centralized structures.

Mintzberg on Planning

Following on from the structure, it is pertinent to consider Mintzberg’s work on aspects of planning in organizations. “Planning is future thinking, controlling the future, decision making, integrated decision making, a formalized procedure to produce an articulated result, in the form of an integrated system of decisions” (Mintzberg, 1994: pp. 7–13).

“Planning leads planners to formalize and correspondingly decompose, articulate, and rationalize. But organizations must plan to co-ordinate their activities. A major argument in favour of planning, is that decisions made together formally in a single process will ensure that the efforts of the organization are properly co-ordinated. Organizations must also plan to ensure that the future is taken into account. . . .The future can be taken into account in three basic ways: preparing for the inevitable, pre-empting the undesirable, controlling the controllable. Organizations must plan to be ‘rational’.The prime reason put forth for engaging in planning is that it is simply a superior form of management; formalized decision making is better than non-formalized decision making. Organizations must plan to control. Control through planning extends itself in all directions. Planning is meant to control others in the organization, namely those whose work is ‘co-ordinated’. . . . Planning is also meant to control the future of the organization and, therefore, the environment outside the organization” (Mintzberg, 1994: p. 17).

Mintzberg and Queen (1992) claim that organizations engage in formal planning not to create strategies but to programme the strategies they already have, that is to elaborate and operationalize the consequences of those strategies formally.

We should really say that effective organizations so engage in planning, at least when they require the formalized implementation of their strategies. Thus strategy is not the consequence of planning but its starting point. Planning helps to translate the intended strategies into realized ones, taking the first step that leads ultimately to implementation.

26 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 27

Structures in context

This strategic programming as it might properly be labelled can be considered to involve a series of steps, namely the codification of a given strategy, including its clarification and articulations, the elaboration of that strategy into sub-strategies, ad hoc action programmes, and plans of various kinds, and the translation of those sub-strategies, programmes, and plans into routine budgets and objectives. In these steps we see planning as an analytical process that takes over after the synthesis of strategic formation is completed.

Thus formal planning properly belongs in the implementation of strategy, not in its formulation. But it should be emphasized that strategic programming makes sense when viable intended strategies are available, in other words when the world is expected to hold still while these strategies unfold so that formulation can logically precede implementation and when the organization that does the implementing in fact requires clearly codified and elaborated strategies. In other circumstances, strategic programming can do organizations harm by pre-empting the flexibility that managers and others may need to respond to changes in the environment, or to their own internal processes of learning (p. 275).

Mintzberg rightly warns about the pitfalls of planning. Planning concerns commitment and may be used to introduce change, to serve specific politics and enable control. There is a fallacy of predetermination, detachment, and formalization but plans may be created as means of public relations.‘Because analysis is not synthesis strategic planning is not strategy formation’ (p. 321). The role of planning is seen as a role in strategic programming but the roles of plans are as communication media and control devices and the roles of planners are as finders of strategy (or interpreters of action, pattern recog- nizers) as analysts, catalysts, and strategists.

27 Ch01-H8476.qxd 7/23/07 11:41 AM Page 28